For me the idea of interconnectedness is an expression of a doctrine of self. For me, interconnectedness conjures up images of lots of little pieces with some kind of fasteners binding together......lots of selves being held together by lots of other selves. For me it seems better to use a word more like continuum.chownah

chownah wrote:For me the idea of interconnectedness is an expression of a doctrine of self. For me, interconnectedness conjures up images of lots of little pieces with some kind of fasteners binding together......lots of selves being held together by lots of other selves. For me it seems better to use a word more like continuum.chownah

It would depend upon the context of how it is understood.

"As I am, so are others;as others are, so am I."Having thus identified self and others,harm no one nor have them harmed. Sn 705

Certainly here the Buddha is not talking about some "doctrine of self" self, nor would it be so, I would surmise, of Buddhadasa or Thich Nhat Hahn.

SN 55.7 wrote:"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones reflects thus: 'I love life and don't love death. I love happiness and abhor pain. Now if I — loving life and not loving death, loving happiness and abhorring pain — were to be killed, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I were to kill another who loves life and doesn't love death, who loves happiness and abhors pain, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?' Reflecting in this way, he refrains from taking life, gets others to refrain from taking life, and speaks in praise of refraining from taking life. In this way his bodily behavior is pure in three ways.

"Furthermore, he reflects thus: 'If someone, by way of theft, were to take from me what I haven't given, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me... If someone were to commit adultery with my wives, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me... If someone were to damage my well-being with a lie, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me... If someone were to divide me from my friends with divisive speech, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me... If someone were to address me with harsh speech, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me... If someone were to address me with idle chatter, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I were to address another with idle chatter, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?' Reflecting in this way, he refrains from idle chatter, gets others to refrain from idle chatter, and speaks in praise of refraining from idle chatter. In this way his verbal behavior is pure in three ways."http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/stream2.html— SN 55.7

"'I shall protect myself,' in that way the foundations of mindfulness should be practiced. 'I shall protect others,' in that way the foundations of mindfulness should be practiced. Protecting oneself one protects others; protecting others one protects oneself. And how does one, in protecting oneself, protect others? By the repeated and frequent practice of meditation. And how does one, in protecting others, protect oneself? By patience and forbearance, by a non-violent and harmless life, by compassion and loving kindness." -- S 52,8

Whether we want it or not, on some level there is an interconnectedness. You are reading this and it is eliciting a response in you. Ooops, interconnected, and no need for a "doctrine of self."

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Perhaps the Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Properties (more usually translated "elements") is also relevant, as it speaks of observing internal and external elements:

"'One should not be negligent of discernment, should guard the truth, be devoted to relinquishment, and train only for calm.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? And how is one not negligent of discernment? These are the six properties: the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, the wind property, the space property, the consciousness property.

"And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property? Anything internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and makes the earth property fade from the mind....http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Attention directed externally to the world v. attention directed internally to mind and body ( eg as per the 4 frames of reference ). Theravada focusses on the latter, some traditions focus more on the former - I think Thich Nhat Hahn's tradition ( Interbeing ) is one of these.

"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."Peter Gabriel lyric

Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property.

.........are very suggestive. To me it suggests that the concept of internal and external is arbitrary, artificial, and perhaps based on illusion. If one reads the Loka suttas and The All Sutta it is difficult to think of the concept of internal vs. external to be anything other than conventional speech.......seems like conventional speech whose purpose is to engage people by using their conventional views of the world and then encourages them to see the arbitrary, artificial, or illusory nature of that view........I guess.......don't know for sure.......chownah

Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property.

.........are very suggestive. To me it suggests that the concept of internal and external is arbitrary, artificial, and perhaps based on illusion. If one reads the Loka suttas and The All Sutta it is difficult to think of the concept of internal vs. external to be anything other than conventional speech.......seems like conventional speech whose purpose is to engage people by using their conventional views of the world and then encourages them to see the arbitrary, artificial, or illusory nature of that view........I guess.......don't know for sure.......chownah

Sounds good to me, generally.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property.

.........are very suggestive. To me it suggests that the concept of internal and external is arbitrary, artificial, and perhaps based on illusion. If one reads the Loka suttas and The All Sutta it is difficult to think of the concept of internal vs. external to be anything other than conventional speech.......seems like conventional speech whose purpose is to engage people by using their conventional views of the world and then encourages them to see the arbitrary, artificial, or illusory nature of that view........I guess.......don't know for sure.......chownah

Oh, no!!! Conventional and {{{gasp}}} ultimate speech? The Buddha's "conventional speech" teachings are less true than the "ultimate speech" teachings?

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

This from P.A Payutto's "Dependent Origination. The Buddhist Law of Conditionality"

"All facets of the natural order -- the physical world and the human world, the world of conditions (dhamma) and the world of actions (kamma), the material world and the mental world -- are connected and interrelated, they cannot be separated. Disorder and aberration in one sector will affect other sectors. If we want to live in peace, we must learn how to live in harmony with all spheres of the natural environment, both the internal and the external, the individual and the social, the physical and the mental, the material and the immaterial.To create true happiness it is of utmost importance that we not only reflect on the interrelationship of all things in the natural order, but also see ourselves clearly as one system of causal relationships within that natural order, becoming aware first of the internal mental factors, then those in our life experiences, in society, and ultimately in the world around us. This is why, of all the systems of causal relationship based on the law "because there is this, that arises; when this ceases that ceases," the teachings of Buddhism begin with, and stress throughout, the factors involved in the creation of suffering in individual awareness -- "because there is ignorance, there are volitional formations." Once this system of causal relationship is understood on the inner level, we are then in a position to see the connections between these inner factors and the causal relationships in society and the natural environment. This is the approach adopted in this book".

Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property.

.........are very suggestive. To me it suggests that the concept of internal and external is arbitrary, artificial, and perhaps based on illusion. If one reads the Loka suttas and The All Sutta it is difficult to think of the concept of internal vs. external to be anything other than conventional speech.......seems like conventional speech whose purpose is to engage people by using their conventional views of the world and then encourages them to see the arbitrary, artificial, or illusory nature of that view........I guess.......don't know for sure.......chownah

Oh, no!!! Conventional and {{{gasp}}} ultimate speech? The Buddha's "conventional speech" teachings are less true than the "ultimate speech" teachings?

I have no idea what """{{{gasp}}} ultimate speech""" is......but it seems like it might have something to do with loss of breath control......or maybe it is how one speaks if ones vocal chords do not function so one must gasp air and then vocalize while belching the air out.......I'll bet that is right!....."""{{{gasp}}} ultimate speech""" is belch-speak....right? Did the Buddha invent belch-speech?chownah

Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property.

.........are very suggestive. To me it suggests that the concept of internal and external is arbitrary, artificial, and perhaps based on illusion. If one reads the Loka suttas and The All Sutta it is difficult to think of the concept of internal vs. external to be anything other than conventional speech.......seems like conventional speech whose purpose is to engage people by using their conventional views of the world and then encourages them to see the arbitrary, artificial, or illusory nature of that view........I guess.......don't know for sure.......chownah

Oh, no!!! Conventional and {{{gasp}}} ultimate speech? The Buddha's "conventional speech" teachings are less true than the "ultimate speech" teachings?

I have no idea what """{{{gasp}}} ultimate speech""" is......but it seems like it might have something to do with loss of breath control......or maybe it is how one speaks if ones vocal chords do not function so one must gasp air and then vocalize while belching the air out.......I'll bet that is right!....."""{{{gasp}}} ultimate speech""" is belch-speak....right? Did the Buddha invent belch-speech?chownah

Wow!! A really precious attempt at humor, but you avoided addressing what you said. You have just drawn a distinction between the speech of SN IV 15 -- the all -- and that of the "internal/external" notions as found in the Satipatthana Sutta, the latter of which you characterize as possibly arbitrary and possibly based upon illusion. And this satipatthana type "conventional" speech's real function, according to you it seems, is to point to "the all."

In other words, you have drawn is distinction between two types of speech found in the suttas. One is conventional and the other, you seem to suggest, more accurately reflects reality. I am simply asking you, in your drawing this distinction, if you regard what you called "conventional speech," as we see it in MN 10, less true than what is found in SN IV 15.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

tiltbillings wrote:Whether we want it or not, on some level there is an interconnectedness.

Definitely. There is the social, political and economic interconnectedness; the physical world, meteorology interconnectedness; the butterfly effect. And from a purely scientific-materialism perspective, there is interconnectedness:

"The atoms of our bodies are traceable to stars that manufactured them in their cores and exploded these enriched ingredients across our galaxy, billions of years ago. For this reason, we are biologically connected to every other living thing in the world. We are chemically connected to all molecules on Earth. And we are atomically connected to all atoms in the universe. We are not figuratively, but literally stardust."Neil deGrasse TysonAstrophysicist

Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property.

.........are very suggestive. To me it suggests that the concept of internal and external is arbitrary, artificial, and perhaps based on illusion. If one reads the Loka suttas and The All Sutta it is difficult to think of the concept of internal vs. external to be anything other than conventional speech.......seems like conventional speech whose purpose is to engage people by using their conventional views of the world and then encourages them to see the arbitrary, artificial, or illusory nature of that view........I guess.......don't know for sure.......chownah

Oh, no!!! Conventional and {{{gasp}}} ultimate speech? The Buddha's "conventional speech" teachings are less true than the "ultimate speech" teachings?

In this and your subsequent post you seem to have created some phantasy which includes me in a central role. In this phantasy I seem to have the view that there are two types of speech called conventional and ultimate.......and I seem to be of the view that there are two types of teachings called conventional speech teachings and ultimate speech teachings......and that I have drawn a distinction between these two types of speech as found in the suttas....and that the distinction I am drawing has to do with which one more accurately depicts reality and/or truth.

This is all YOUR phantasy and as far as I can tell it is not in any way based upon my post........this phantasy is not where I am coming from and I have no intention of going there.

I do not know what ultimate speech is. I do not know any way of considering speech to be ultimate in any sense regardless of who is speaking it......the Buddha included. If asked to define "ultimate speech"I am more inclined to call it an oxymoron than anything else.

You could try to define ultimate speech for me but you might as well save your breath as I already have long held views that speech can not be in any way ultimate......but if it is in your heart then fire away.

I could try to refine my meaning of conventional speech at your request but you should first understand that it is unlikely that you can drag me into your phantasy........I'm clinging very tenaciously onto my own.